LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 897 819 5 # 



THE MISSOUHI COMPROMISE. 

SKETCH OF THE REMARKS 

OF 

JAMES 0. PUTNAM, 

UPON THE 

JVEBK^SK^ jre:siojlutiojvis9 

In Senate of State of N. York, Feb. 3, 1854. 



Mr. PUTNAM said : Mr. President— I cannot 
concur witli the sentiment that the introduction 
of this subject is uu timely, and legislative ac- 
tion is unnecessary. I think, that in the history 
of the question connected with these resolutions, 
New York has a vital interest. I think the State 
of New York would be false to herself, false to 
her past legislation ou the questions which con- 
vulsed the country to its centre, when Missouri 
asked admission into the Union, if she did not 
now, thirty-four years after that action, at a 
time when all good faith is to be wantonly sacri- 
ficed and trampled on, if she did not most em- 
phatically rebuke this project of the Senator 
from Illinois. I am unwilling to have these res- 
olutions disposed of quite so summarilj', and 
upon a silent vote. 

Sir, let us look for a moment at the basis of the 
Union of these States. All free government is the 
result of mutual compromise. The government 
under which we live, has uo other original basis. 
The convention at Philadelphia, which framed 
the Constitution of the United States, represent 
ed the most extreme views, and the most antag- 
onistic interests of the several States. Of all 
questions which patriotism was there called up 
on to settle, none more threateningly menaced the 
objects of the Convention than that of Slavery. 
At the South, Slavery had incorporated itself in- 
to all the relations of society. The character of 
Southern climate and products had stimulated 
this vigorous growth. While it had a nominal 
existence at the North, it had no such relations 
to northern capital or industry as promised per- 
manency to the system. Hence arose the con- 
flicting political and moral views in the conven- 
QQ ou this great question. 



After mouths of discussion, and of patriot! 
labor and sacrifice, their work was accomplish- 
ed, the Constitution presented to the States. In 
the language of Washington, it was framed in 
the spirit of " amity and compromise." 

The South consented to the partnership, pro- 
vided she could be protected in her slave pro- 
perty by the restoration of her fugitive slaves. 
She also insisted upon a representation of her 
slave projierty, in Congress. Although the 
moral sense of the North was against it, she 
yielded to the first demand, and she yielded the 
second for an equivalent in the matter of taxa- 
tion. These questions at rest, the Constitution 
was presented to the States for ratification. 
Here ensued another, and for a long time, 
loubtful struggle. But at length the last State 
gave in its adhesion, and then arose this gov- 
ernment in its own proper beauty, and granite 
strength, to take its place among the powers of 
the earth. 

The Northern Atlantic States were commercial 
States; commerce, everywhere a leading and 
controling element, ever has been, and ever will 
be, aggressive. And when united to it are the 
higher elements of civilization, it elevates where 
it subdues, and becomes the advance-guard of 
the institutions of Christianity. 

The commercial spirit early discovered the 
importance of controlling the Valley of the Mis- 
sissippi, and the outlet to the Gulf of Mexico. 
Mr. Jefferson, with a clear prescience of his 
country's future, appreciated the same necessity. 
He opened the uegotiation with France which 
resulted in the treaty of 1803, which secured tc 
the United States the territory of Lousiana. In 
1804. Louisiana, in pursuance of the treaty was 



erected into two territories, and the act so organ- 
izing the territory, made many restrictions upon 
the slave traffic. In due time Louisiana, proper, 
was admitted as a State, and of necessity and 
without objection as a shive State. So matters 
rested until 1819-20, when arose that storm 
which convulsed the country to its centre, and 



to the North, by surrendering forever the terri- 
tory acquired from France, and lying north of 
36 degrees 30 minutes, to freedom. A patriot- 
ism Mhich this age may well imitate and revere, 
responded to the call. The principle of the 
amendment proposed by New York through Mr. 
Storrs, was adopted. Missouri became a sov- 



whose angry blasts still linger in our ears. — lereign Stale, with slavery, bid upon a consideru- 



Missouri knocked at the door of the Union, and 
asked equal privileges with the other states. A 
part of tlie territory ceded by France in 1803, 
and of the Louisiana purchase, she was ready 
to enter the sisterhood of States. Sir, let us 
briefly review the history of that contest. Let 



lion, upon a solenm pledge, emphatic and irre- 
vocable ; solemn as plighted faith could make it, 
positive as enactments could decree it, that 
slavery should be forever excluded north of 36 
degrees 30 minutes, from the Louisiana purchase. 
After the admission of Missouri, Arkansas 



us see the part acted by NewTork, in that con-tcame into the Union with slavery. She was en 
troversy, and we shall be the better prepared tojtitled to admission under the compromise of 1820 



meet the argument of Senator Douglass. 
souri asked to corue in as a slave State. 



Mis-jThe North acquiesced, in good faith, paid the 
The;bond. The country has long regarded that 



southern States insisted upon her admission as aiquestion as at rest, not a rest for a generation or 
matter of right. The northern States concededia century, but a final, and eternal rest. Sir, let 
the propriety of her admission as a free State, me recur a moment to the action of the Legisla- 
but denied the right she claimed to enter as a ture of New-York, pending this controversy. — 
slave State. At the same time, the State of On the 20th of January 1820, and while the con- 
Maine, from the northern Atlantic coast, urgedjtrovcrsy was the most violent, her Legislature 
her claim to admission into the Union. Herlpassed a preamble and resolution, instructing 
right was unquestiond, but the southern Statestheir representatives in Congress " to oppose the 
sought to authorize the admission of the twojadmission as a State into the Union of any ter- 
States by one act, for the purpose of securing the|ritory not comprised within the original boun- 
admission of Missouri with slavery. Such an dary of the United States, without making the 
act passed the Senate of the United States. The prohibition of slavery thcein an indispensahlc 
House of Representatives refused to concur, i\.w(\' condition of admissioti." 

Maine was admitted by a separate and indepen- This sir, was the position of New York, and 
dent act. Then the controversy was narrowedlshe would have resisted to thii» day, but for a 
down to the admission of Missouri, and a great compromise which surrendered a controverted 
part of that angry discussion arose upon two right for a forever conceded advantage. There 
amendments to the bill, authorizing the unquali-jwere within the then unknown future of the con- 
fied admission of Missouri, or amendments simi-'troverted territory, four States. New York with 
lar to them, introduced by two representatives'the other free States, insisted that all of them 
from New Yoik. Mr. Taylor, of this State, in-lshould come in with the slavery prohibition, the 
troduced an amendment to the act admitting'soulh resisted the demand. It was adjusted by 
Missouri, prohibitory of slavery in the State, yielding Missouri and Arkansas to slavery, and 
Mr. Storrs, of New York, introduced another Nebraska and Kansas tlr:.'n undeveloped and un- 
amendment, and which contains the principle ofjChristened, to freedom. Such was the bond. — 
the uUimate compromise, and is in the followinglNew York has discharged her part of the obliga- 



tion. 



language : 

" That in all that tract of country ceded byjqueslion as vital 
France to the United States^ under the name orlUnion. 
Louisiana, which lies North of thirty-six degrees 
and thirty minutes north latitude, excepting only 
such part thereof as is included within the lim- 
its of the State contempUited by tliis act, there 
shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servi- 
tude, otherwise than in the punishment of crime: 
whereof the party shall have been duly convict 
ed." It also provided for the surrender of fugitive 
slaves. 

Pending the debate upon the several amend' 
ments, raged that storm which threatened the 
very existence of the govurnment. It was of this 
fearful conflict that Mr. .Jei.'fkrson said it was 
" the most [)ort':'ntous that ever threatened the 
Union, that in tlie gloomiest moment of the Re 
volutionary war, he never had any apprehensions 
equal to tliat he feit from that controvcM-sy."' It 
was in the midst of this conflict of opinion and 
passion that the " gre;>.t Pacificator," Mr. Clay 
invoked that prit)ci[ile v.hich lies at the basi 
of all social and political organization He called 
upon the country to make another sacrifice upon 
the altar of patriotism. He invoked the North 
to quiet the Si)nth by admitting Missouri, with- 
out restriction. Me invoked the South to yield 



will the South discharge hers? It is 

the very existence of the 



But sir, the Nebraska bill alluded to in the 
resolutions, declares the j)rohibition of slavery 
in the compromise of 1820 to be inoperative, 
and to be repealed by the compromise measures 
of 1850. This is a proposition easily stated. — 
Sir, the compromise of 1820, stood isolated from 
every other relation then present or future. It 
related solely to the territory acquired from 
Fiance, and known as the Louisiana purchase. 
It might possibly have some bearing upon the 
permission of slavery in subsequently acquired 
territory south of 36.30. But if so, it would 
with equal force exclude slavery north of that 
fine. 

Tlie Compromise of 1850 was independent of 
all past Compromises, and entirely original in all 
its bearings and relations. Let us cxamiue its 
history. 

'i"ho acquisition of our Territery from Mexico 
was the result of a Nat/onal war , and whatever 
may have been the etliics of that contest, I re- 
gard that acquisition as the natural result of our 
institutions. 

Had we not acquired it wJicn we did, andasiwe 
lid, its acquisitioUj at some time, and in sofiac 



^ manner, was one of the facts of our destiny. Socannot argue it away.' To override it in the 



certain as the weaker yields before the stronger, 
80 certain as an inferior society yields before 
the Superior power of a higher civilization, so 
certain as a keen scented, earnest, grasping com- 
mercial spirit, will overcome the indolent or ef- 
fete systems that oppose its progress, just so cer- 
tain was the star ol our Empire to " Westward 
take its way," until it should mirror itself in the 
calm waters of the Pacific. 

Our Mexican Territory was acquired by treaty 
and became National domain. Before we were 
fairly recovered from our surprise over so stu- 
pendous results, California knocked at the door 
of the Union with a free constitution, and de- 
manded admission to the sisterhood of States. — 
The South was disappointed, she felt that the 
balance of power was departing from her. She 



manner proposed by the Nebraska bill, would be 
subversive of all good faith, and good faith un- 
derlies the foundation of Republican empire. — 
Your most solemn enactments, are but idle 
parchment, and a mockery, under .such construc- 
tion. 

But it is argued that the Compromise of 1820, 
was but a law, and may be repealed as any other 
law. I grant this to be its mere legal relation. 
I do not claim for it that it is technically a 
treaty, or a compact, or a constitutional provis- 
ion, but I contend that in spirit, and of right it 
has, the bhiding force nf them all. While in form 
it was but a law, it was in fact a treaty, or a com- 
pact by which the Slave States, in consideration 
of the admission of Missouri with slavery, solemn- 
ly .agreed that the territory north of 36 30, 



said she had contributed her money and her men should he forever free. Can the South take and 
to secure this domain and she insisted that the|keep what we parted with, and now refuse the 
flag of the country should protect her propertyjprice, without consent of the other contracting 
in all its forms on every inch of this new|party1 Can she now say that a second coniprom- 
National domain. The history of that contest'ise destroys the first? What will she say of a 
which threatened, as I then believed, and nowithird compromise — that it destroy ed the 'econd'? 
believe, the very existence of the Republic, isllf this be the rule, the fewer compromises we 
fresh in our memories. Amid most stormy con- make the better; and I apprehend tins would be 
trovensy and most dissentient opinions, the Com- more than conviction with the North, 
promise measures relating solely to the territory! That this was a compact: v\as the view of all 
acquired from Mexico, became fixed laws and in- the statesmen and political writers of that time, 
stitntious. If for the sake of a natural boundaryjl find that the Editor of Niks' Begisler, than 
a fragment was excluded from the Louisiana teri-lwhom few men were more accurate observers of 
tory it was not of consequence to change theipolitical events, spoke of it as having the bind- 
principle. ing moral force of a constitutional provision. I 

The positions taken by Senator Douglas arejread Sir, from Niles' Reuister of March 11, 1820, 
involved in two propositions. First, that thesefrom an article entitled " The Slave Question," 
measures repealed the Compromi.se of 1820. in which he says; — "It is true the Compromise 
Second, that they were the adoption of a new is su[iported only by the letter of a law, repeala- 
policy and doctrine, to wit: that any State has a ble by the authority which enacted it, but the 
right to demand admission into the Union, with'circumstances of the case give to this law a 
or without slavery, irrespective of the location ofi,7io?-«//orce, equal to that of a positive provision 
its territory, or the manner of its acquisition. jof the Constitution, and we do not hazard any- 

Sir, I shared the sentiments of those northern thing by saying, that the Constitution exists in 
statesmen who in 1850 were instrumental in bring-:its observance." This view met the written ap- 
ing about that Compromi.se. I closely watched proval of the most eminent statesmen of that 
and personally listened to much of the debates|time. 

in Congress during that angry discussion, and; Sir, this reasoning of the Illinois Senator, in- 
not a syllable every reached ray eye or my eariterpolates a fraud into the record. Who believes 
sanctioning these alarming propositions. Is thelfor a moment, that the measures of 1850, could 
Missouri Compromise repealed in terms 1 is it inlever have been passed, if they had contained in 
spirit! Was it claimed in any .speech of anyiso many words a repeal of the Compromise of 
member of Congress, North or South 1 No, sir ;'18201 If in addition to what they gave the 
that Compromise stood alone, on its own basis, South, they had also declared that what was 
and forever inviolable. The Senator from Illi-igiven to the North in 1820, and which alone 
nois declares that those magic words " The peo- calmed the storm that threatened to overwhelm 
pie of the United States do enact," &c., wereius, was to be transferred to slavery ? That that 



more than creative. That they not only made 
a new Compromise in relation to new territory, 
freshly accpiired, but without language to ex- 
press it, or innuendo to allude to it, destroyed an 
adjustment in relation to the Louisiana purchase 
which we had held for nearly half a century, 
and under which the country had repo.?edin con- 



bargain was to be cancelled, and that too with- 
out the shadow of an equivalent. Sir, the jiroji- 
osition would have been trampled under the feet 
of an indignant i)eo])le, with scorn and defiance. 
Sir, a bargain is a bargain, and because it is such, 
I, with multitudes of conservative men at the 
North, conceded to the South her fugitive slave 



fideuce for thirty years. Sir, this proposition is act, in 1850. Let her beware how she forfeits 



utterly unsustained. TheComjiromise measures 
of 1850 were not destructive. They constituted 
a new bond, a new compact, in its moral force 
between the free and the slave States, in relation 
to matters wholly independent 

The acts that affixed the seal to this new 
bond, did not raze the seal from the old one. 
They left it untou 'bed in letter and spirit. It 
is there Sir. Words cannot rail it off, casuistry 



our confidence in a good faith, which must be 
reciproc 1, or bind nobody. 

But there is another proposition more start- 
ling, if possible, than that I have noticed. It is 
that the mea.:ures of 1850, engrafted a new poli- 
cy upon the government. That it relinquishe I 
all claim or right on the part of Congress, to 
regulate slavery in the territories, or give quali- 
fied admi.ssion to new Stales into the Union, come 



LS,?''^ ^^ CONGRESS 



they from where they may. If this be true, Sir.lthe resull 
the followers of the Veiled Prophet, were notirace ; to 



more " dupes and victims" than we, who sus 
tained the compromise of 1850. Because we 
acquiesced in granting to the South, nay insisted 
that there should be granted her, her constitu- 
tional rights; because, in addition, we were will- 
ing to yield something in the " spirit of am- 
ity," and that something expressly " nomina 
ted in the bond," did we yield everything ? Did 
we turn propagandists of her institutions'? From 
the organization of the government there has 
been but one opinion at the North, and hardly a 
divided one at the South, that slavery was an 
evil. That it degraded labor, that it weakened 
the strength of States, and aside from its moral 
considerations, of which I do not speak, was 
upon gre^t principles of public policy, to be kept 
within its original limits. This was the policy 
of the government, and it has been waived only 
under circumstances, when concession seemed to 
be duty. To this we trace the action of the 
States in relation to the North Western Territory, 
and of Congress in reflation to the Louisiana 
purchase. In this we have but followed the en 
lightened sentiments of all nations. Suppose the 
result claimed by the Senator from Illinois did 
not arise from the unseen magic of the measures 
of 1850, but from express enactment, what rea 
son could be given for overthrowing this long 
settled policy 1 Did our fathers, and have we 
mistaken the effects of slavery upon society ? — 
Does it really elevate labor, does it dignify 
States, does it tend to develope the highest ele- 
ments of a people, to have this institution in 
their midst "? Were our fathers in error, when by 
positive act they prohibited it from Ohio, Indiana, 
and Illinois 1 Was it a mistake on the part of 
our own State, that we abolished it years ago 1 
No sir, no sir. 

The reason for this policy grows more potent 
with every rising sun. The proposition, if true, 
sends us back to the dark .ages of public opinion. 
Let me not be misunderstood in this connection. 
I have no sympathy with northern anti-slavery 
fanaticism. I have entertained extreme con- 
servative sentiments on this subject. My oppo- 
sition to the extension of the institution does 
not rest upon the humanity or the legalities of the 
relation of master and slave. Of these I say 
nothing ; upon them I base neither sentiment or 
conduct; I look beyond and higher. I look at 



institutio 
to humat 
policy sLv. 




011 897 819 5 



jrior 
I the 
>wer 

the 
■ping 
cum- 



slavery within its limits, except unuei 
stances like those which have two or three times 
occurred since the formation of the government, 
and which can hardly again arise Its abandon- 
ment will not be conceded through a falsified 
record. No, sir ; the north, I trust, will ever ad- 
here to the Compromises of the Constitution, and 
to all other compromises which patriotism, amid 
conflicting but honest opinion, has been called 
to make, but beyond this she must not be pressed 
to go. She is asked to keep the compact in 
good faith, let it be reciprocal, and she Avill keep it. 
Sir, I distrust the source whence this Nebraska 
bill emanates. I say to the South, she should 
fear the Greeks offering gifts. It comes from a 
Presidential adventurer, who, in the last National 
Democratic Convention, received fewer votes 
than he expected, more than he deserved, for- 
tunately for the country, not enough to secure 
his end. It comes from the peculiar represen- 
tative of " Young America," who hold nothing 
sacred in the past, who oppose on principle or 
passion all conservatism, and run rampant 
over all institutions which interpose barriers to 
the attainment of their ends. I feel it my duty 
to do what my predeces.sor in 1820 did, and op- 
pose this President hunting ambition I trust to 
' o'er leap itself" He voted instructions, thirty- 
four years ago, to our representatives, to oppose 
the admission of Missouri as a slave State. New 
York consented to that admission upon a solemn 
compact. That compact it is now proposed to 
violate, and that not in a bold manly way, but 
through a fraud and a cheat! If I could reach 
the ear of the south, I would exhort her to be- 
ware , that it is dangerous to accept this gift, 
that the honest convictions of many northern 
men deemed the Compromises of 1850 just and 
)roper, and called for by the exigencies of the 
times, and affording a protection to the institu- 
tions of slavery, beyond which it was not safe to 
pass. I would say to her, we are a conservative 
people and a reasoning people, but we have also 
instincts. Re.ison is slow and calculating. In- 
stinct is not slow, but rapid as the lightning, and 
consuming as the fires it kindles. 



Printed at the Albany Reuibtsr Opficb. 



^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



I II I 

iiiiiiiiiiiii 

011 897 819 5 • 



